Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court held it was not plain and obvious that a study commission report was immune from judicial review, but struck collateral declarations against commission staff as abusive.
The Commissioner misconstrued the Order in Council by expanding the Inquiry's subject matter beyond what the legislature intended; properly construed the mandate is limited to institutional responses to allegations of historical sexual abuse of young people in Cornwall by persons in authority or positions of trust (including Project Truth and similar allegations), and the evidence of C12 and C13 falls outside that subject matter and is not reasonably relevant, so the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction.
Source excerpt
Federal Court ruling under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act on redactions in the Arar inquiry report, balancing national-security confidentiality against public disclosure.
The appeals and cross-appeals were dismissed: the Federal Court judge did not err in ordering the transmission of emails between Sept 7, 2004 and Aug 25, 2005 and properly excluded emails after Aug 25, 2005 because they related to Phase II and were not relevant to Phase I fact‑finding; assessment of probative value is for the judge hearing the merits; the cross-appeal against the extension of time to appeal lacked merit.
Source excerpt
The Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, concluded the Commissioner properly applied the Dagenais/Mentuck balancing test in the context of a policy‑oriented public inquiry, gave adequate weight to the employee's acquittal and privacy interests, and reasonably found openness and the name's relevance to the mandate outweighed the need for a publication ban on these facts.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court set aside the Parker Report, finding Commissioner Parker exceeded his jurisdiction and failed to afford procedural fairness to Sinclair M. Stevens.
The Court held that the Smith Commission draft report was excluded from FOIPPA s. 3(1)(b) as a draft decision made in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Where an independent investigator was retained by the Minister to carry out a ministerial review and acted within the ambit of that agency, documents arising from the investigation are in the Province's control and must be delivered to the Province so it can produce relevant, non-privileged materials under Rule 20.06; promises of confidentiality do not by themselves prevent the principal from being required to produce documents, subject to privilege claims and privacy-protective restrictions.
Source excerpt
The Court dismissed Sinclair Stevens’s motion to examine former Commissioner Parker, holding the requested discovery was not warranted and the evidence did not justify lifting deliberative secrecy.
Judicial review allowed. The Court held the investigator appointed under s. 152(4) CCRA exceeded his mandate by making findings about the applicant’s conduct and code breaches.
Explore more
